The Democratic Party is urging Americans to choose Medicare as we've always known it rather than a new plan by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that would enroll seniors in private health insurance beginning in 2022. This choice is a hoax: Medicare as we've always known it is already gone. It was eviscerated by President Obama's health law. Yet if the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters, they may win back independents and registered Democrats who voted for Republicans in 2010. The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.

The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years and spends the money on other programs, including a vast expansion of Medicaid. In 2019, Medicare spending under the Obama health law is projected to be $14,731 per senior, instead of $16,162 if the law had not passed, according to Medicare actuaries (Health Affairs, October 2010).

Such cuts might be justifiable if the savings extended the financial life of Medicare. Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim. Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.

The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare. Mr. Ryan's plan, on the other hand, stops the Medicare heist and puts the funds "saved" in this decade toward health care for another generation of retirees.

The Democratic Party is urging Americans to choose Medicare as we've always known it rather than a new plan by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that would enroll seniors in private health insurance beginning in 2022. This choice is a hoax: Medicare as we've always known it is already gone. It was eviscerated by President Obama's health law. Yet if the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters, they may win back independents and registered Democrats who voted for Republicans in 2010. The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.

The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years and spends the money on other programs, including a vast expansion of Medicaid. In 2019, Medicare spending under the Obama health law is projected to be $14,731 per senior, instead of $16,162 if the law had not passed, according to Medicare actuaries (Health Affairs, October 2010).

Such cuts might be justifiable if the savings extended the financial life of Medicare. Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim. Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.

The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare. Mr. Ryan's plan, on the other hand, stops the Medicare heist and puts the funds "saved" in this decade toward health care for another generation of retirees.

Click to expand...

more at the source.

Click to expand...

She is correct in that Medicare is a bullshit program. There is a moment in history when it became a bullshit program, that moment is when GW signed the 'D' legislation intertwining the Public Bureaucracy with the multiple and mysterious private bureaucracies and their even more mysterious owners, creating a quazi-public / quazi-private bureaucracy designed to move money from the tax payer to the drug and insurance companies using the elderly as the tear-jerking bait.

Ryans plan to feed tax payer dollars to the private bureaucracies for hospital and doctors coverage will create the same confusion in the market and profits for the owners of the private bureaucracies that has PROVEN to be the case with Medicare - D.

We have two and only two choices: Create and maintain a true public bureaucracy that is charged with the responsibility of collecting premiums and paying claims based solely on rules and laws or open the private bureaucracies to true competition across state lines.

Meanwhile, real reform of Medicare continues. In the space of 30 days we've seen the first crack at a major restructuring of the incentive structure of the delivery system, the launch of one of the largest public-private patient safety initiatives in recent memory aimed at reducing medical errors and preventing hospital-acquired conditions, and the finalization of guidelines for the soon-to-begin Medicare hospital value-based purchasing program in which hospital reimbursement becomes linked to performance on quality indicators (including measures of patient experience).

The future of Medicare lies in improving the care delivered to seniors, not in dismantling it and denying seniors care as the Ryan proposal would do.

"Here's the difference: under Ryan's plan, the government pays a set amount for Medicare and you pay for the rest. So far, that's pretty similar to the congressional plan. But that set amount goes up very slowly under Ryan's plan &#8212; much more slowly than the actual rise in the cost of health insurance &#8212; which means that seniors have to pay a bigger and bigger share of the total premium cost as the years go by."

Taking from one program (Medicare Advantage) and spending it on another program is not saving any money at all.
Obama did the same thing when he first got in office. He took 7 billion from a few programs, called it saving and then spent it on other programs.
Saving money is to stop spending period.
We are not going to get anything done until we get the corruption out of Washington.

The Democratic Party is urging Americans to choose Medicare as we've always known it rather than a new plan by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that would enroll seniors in private health insurance beginning in 2022. This choice is a hoax: Medicare as we've always known it is already gone. It was eviscerated by President Obama's health law. Yet if the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters, they may win back independents and registered Democrats who voted for Republicans in 2010. The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.

The truth is that the Obama health law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over the next 10 years and spends the money on other programs, including a vast expansion of Medicaid. In 2019, Medicare spending under the Obama health law is projected to be $14,731 per senior, instead of $16,162 if the law had not passed, according to Medicare actuaries (Health Affairs, October 2010).

Such cuts might be justifiable if the savings extended the financial life of Medicare. Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius frequently make that false claim. Indeed, even Medicare's mailings to seniors repeat the claim that reducing spending on Medicare will make it more financially secure for future years.

The fact is that Mr. Obama's law raids Medicare. Mr. Ryan's plan, on the other hand, stops the Medicare heist and puts the funds "saved" in this decade toward health care for another generation of retirees.

Click to expand...

more at the source.

Click to expand...

She is correct in that Medicare is a bullshit program. There is a moment in history when it became a bullshit program, that moment is when GW signed the 'D' legislation intertwining the Public Bureaucracy with the multiple and mysterious private bureaucracies and their even more mysterious owners, creating a quazi-public / quazi-private bureaucracy designed to move money from the tax payer to the drug and insurance companies using the elderly as the tear-jerking bait.

Ryans plan to feed tax payer dollars to the private bureaucracies for hospital and doctors coverage will create the same confusion in the market and profits for the owners of the private bureaucracies that has PROVEN to be the case with Medicare - D.

We have two and only two choices:Create and maintain a true public bureaucracy that is charged with the responsibility of collecting premiums and paying claims based solely on rules and laws or open the private bureaucracies to true competition across state lines.

Meanwhile, real reform of Medicare continues. In the space of 30 days we've seen the first crack at a major restructuring of the incentive structure of the delivery system, the launch of one of the largest public-private patient safety initiatives in recent memory aimed at reducing medical errors and preventing hospital-acquired conditions, and the finalization of guidelines for the soon-to-begin Medicare hospital value-based purchasing program in which hospital reimbursement becomes linked to performance on quality indicators (including measures of patient experience).

The future of Medicare lies in improving the care delivered to seniors, not in dismantling it denying seniors care as the Ryan proposal would do.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER:The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER:They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER:Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

BILL MOYERS: And less money on profits?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER:Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes."

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!